We are the Foundation

kvgervieuvuqeviuqvi

  On 10/28/2011 at 2:25 AM, Z_B_Z said:

ive never read his posts?

Don't start.

ok, so heres a thought:

I am trying to compile hard statistics that disprove most of the criticism towards the OWS greivances. Im talking straight from the studies, no New York Times links, that way, when i confront "conservative" friends they can't pull the trump card "BOH BUT YOU GOT THAT FROM A LIB NEWSPAPER NO WONDER." Anyone care to help me out?

Here are the arguments so far that I can think of against the OWS and its supporters that id like to have hard stats on:

1) Corporate tax rates are the highest they have ever been in American History.

False. This was one of the easier ones to find hard stats on.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=64&Topic2id=70

Essentially corporate tax rates are the lowest they have been since 1946, and for the higest earners, the lowest since 1931.

If anyone could link me to a study concerning the actual effective tax rates on corporations over the 20th Century, that would be immensely helpful.

2) High income taxes are at an all-time high.

False.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=566&Topic2id=48

Here we can see that tax rates have effectively dropped on the top 400 income earners in America in all of the highest quadrants (20-30%), with a clear increase in the lower quadrants (10-20%). Note that none of top 400 pay more than 30% income tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=219

Also note the exponential increase in tax-exempt high-income earners since 1977 (far more than what would be a given under national population increase.

Some other questions i was wondering about:

3) Poor people pay no taxes.

4) The tax rate on the middle and lower class is far less compared with percentage of income paid/quality of life than with millionaires/billionaires.

5)Breakdown of our federal budget (im thinking we must spend close to 1/3 of our budget on defense/military)

6)Stagnant wages in the face of unprecedented corporate growth.

anyone feel free to add to this...im hoping it will help all of us out when we are caught in a debate...we will know what is truth and what is false, and have the means to present an overwhelming amount of evidence.

While this may not address your particular questions, *SR4, I just watched it (therefore it's relevant, ta-derr) - and while I'm sure many OWS participants are already aware of these facts/this man,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

note that i did not read all 12 pages of this shabang and may have missed this very video being posted elsewhere

thanks for link.

Butwhat you said before that is exactly my point. If all of the OWS supporters know these facts, it should be easy to put together i comprehensive retort to the neo-con accusations without having to resort to the New York Times or Huffington Post....they pulled these statistics from solid non-partisan sources, Im assuming? So lets put this shit together.

Im just as guilty, but most of us are flinging around VERY generalized observations on macroeconomics, political climate, etc. But just because we have the right conclusions doesn't mean we reached them via viable means in the way of hard statistics.

http://www.nytimes.c...the-charts.html

this for example, anyone have hard links to their statistics? Im gonna dig around the dept. of commerce site for a bit

Also, if anyone is embarrased or doesn't want to post the statistics, plz PM me with the links...you would be doing me a great benefit. The myths need to be confronted at every turn, no?

excellent idea. ill see if i can round something together but ill for sure be reading and bookmarking whatever info youre able to find.

thanks man!

seriously, i think this could be useful to about everyone interested in the OWS movement. the stronger the case is on logic, the greater ability we have to garner support amongst those that currently view the grievances with disdain.

Yeah. I realized awhile back that to go along with the list of grievances, there needs to be a compilation of reliable articles giving example of every grievance that is listed on this here: http://occupywallst....py-wall-street/

Hey Smetty - you're gonna have huge issues finding the effective tax rates that corps pay, because they pay tax lawyers and accountants reasonable salaries to figure out the loop holes.

But here' something that might interest you - for personal income taxes, higher marginal tax rates positively correlate with GDP growth for X number of years.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/10/discouraging-greg-mankiw-from-working.html

they get their stats straight from the IRS and from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

thx for the post chen, gonna add that to the collection.

i know there are stats and studies to prove that "job creators" have created less jobs since the 80s in direct contrast to untold profit booms...again this is probably common knowledge, but someone here has to know of a link to some stats that prove this.

  On 10/28/2011 at 2:29 AM, sup said:

i just dont see why should they swear to them. its poitless

 

being a potty mouth dosent make ur point stronger

thanks mom

  On 10/28/2011 at 3:19 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

thx for the post chen, gonna add that to the collection.

 

 

 

i know there are stats and studies to prove that "job creators" have created less jobs since the 80s in direct contrast to untold profit booms...again this is probably common knowledge, but someone here has to know of a link to some stats that prove this.

They've created plenty of jobs, but they are not in the United States. One of the biggest issues (which I've been harping on about for a few years) is the mobility of labour. To return to the golden age of globalization, labour needs to be able to move freely so that they can go where jobs are. Capital flows need to be liquid, and labour is a form of capital.

whenever i piss on US politics, i have a few friends who tout local politics as less corrupt and actually constructive. here's a nice optimistic article, relevant for any chicago watmmers or rahm haters like myself

http://www.chicagoreader.com/gyrobase/who-has-access-to-mayor-rahm-emanuels/Content?oid=4887900&storyPage=1

Egyptians marched to the US embassy in protest of the OPD's violence against unarmed civilians engaging in peaceful protests... Pretty awesome!

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/28/tahrir.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=36761

I'm pretty sure those guys with the signs and the crowd shots are unrelated, I could be wrong.

edit: no, I'm convinced. I can't be wrong.

  On 10/28/2011 at 7:45 PM, Kcinsu said:

Egyptians marched to the US embassy in protest of the OPD's violence against unarmed civilians engaging in peaceful protests... Pretty awesome!

 

 

http://boingboing.ne...er&dlvrit=36761

Yes.........

wow,....mad love for Egypt o'er this side of the table.

  On 10/28/2011 at 9:30 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

wow,....mad love for Egypt o'er this side of the table.

Indeed, often times it's easier to see through the bullshit from afar... when I lived in Dublin people would ask me how we could elect and re-elect W, to which I could only say that there's a large part of america easily manipulated by propaganda and fear tactics, and that we have an ass-backwards winner-take-all electoral system.

Speaking of which, I'd like to add overhaul of the electoral college to our list of demands. Unless you live in California, Florida, or Ohio (or happen to be a Dem/Rep handjob enthusiast in Iowa or NH during campaign season), your "vote" isn't worth shit.

money will always be at the center of every credible conspiracy

this is strange, i just watched the regional news and they had bit about occupy bristol and i know all the people they chose to interview. don't know why i find that strange. what's interesting is that they've been asked to leave by Remembrance Sunday. not sure why that's interesting. hmm i'm doing a great job getting clear worth in to this post. er, basically they're saying they want stay there and take part in Remembrance Sunday with everyone else... if it's actually allowed it could be a great thing but i doubt it will be.

He needs a bit longer than 7 minutes but it is better than nothing:

that goatee makes him look very untrustworthy

  On 10/29/2011 at 12:26 PM, Bread said:

He needs a bit longer than 7 minutes but it is better than nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdMkAbE6U24

Please tell him he really needs to improve his pitch. If he can't describe a concrete solution in 3 sentences without venturing in the abstract world of psychology and financial systems, it's just a waste of energy.

And personally this amazes me as well. The solution seems to me to be rather straightforward: - keeping money out of politics by making it illegal. For instance, by reviving the McCain–Feingold Act and refuting all the crap that came after. There's no need for utopian abstract civilizations and what not. People need to be represented by politicians again.

Three things need to change

1. In terms of money in politics, corporate money needs to eliminated, and hard spending limits on political campaigns need to be imposed.

2. Corporate personhood needs to be revoked.

3. (and this is the ideological fantasy one) but the idea of "greed is good" needs to disappear. The stock market has stopped functioning as it was intended - which was to put together money and entrepreneurs who needed money to get their business ideas off the ground. Instead it has turned into a wild roller-coaster ride, where the goal is to make money in the short-term. It's funny listening to day-traders complain about "volatility in the market" - they are a large part of why the swings in the stock market are so exaggerated now.

The first two points are enough. With those in place it would be logical if that would lead to better legislation of the markets.

The "greed is good" thing seems inherent to the entire stock market business. It is now and has always been. And that's exactly why it needs to be regulated.